-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote: > Hi, > > In the past few days, something has regressed > on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures > and ~100 of those were LTO related. David Korn's > patch seems to have resolved those. Revision 169504 > has 2231 failures. > > http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-January/000407.html > > > === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes 67336 > # of unexpected failures 699 > # of expected failures 223 > # of unresolved testcases 128 > # of unsupported tests 1233 > /users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc version 4.6.0 20110123 > (experimental) [trunk revision 169143] (GCC) > > http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-February/000440.html > > > > === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes 64480 > # of unexpected failures 2231 > # of expected failures 226 > # of unresolved testcases 50 > # of unsupported tests 1247 > /users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc version 4.6.0 20110201 > (experimental) [trunk revision 169504] (GCC) > > Any ideas? Check 169231, it's exposed multiple latent bugs. I'm seriously considering pulling it.
jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNSW1kAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7LAkH/j+maTGTw8/xV1w8oJ1pb+C9 tzYsW0uAhLm3E6T2CjwPfdYEdcLdPRp0NL0VB2AVSqiKj0kcWG30x/GaHgDg2CSt xBpKPLVudml6Zf+2L4JuEkj3KlI/g1KMXudsfM9fR+SHlkWPsYyJz3cAYwdWesWg 0yzW3vqSUA+M1sL+TestGEjRW5+uGyjwhbg3iZ0QG+g6FXPXEXMp/gOGfkETFzFY VhvL4iQ2sbMYg5xn3wEAPs023hedpXWwg4udWtl5KrMgkgK9MLg13nPu9jXSmXrU zNaO4JzUquLW8sjiHu4llI9UTraKmWkoUd4fT5Ji/wC3XasHseUnqYSZ5vdMtlY= =qyya -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
